Marsha / Ian, Good morning.
Marsha: > > Busy day and impossible subject. I do not own the book (The God > Delusion), only the cds, so it would be impossible for me to debate > examples. As an instrument to uproot the concept of God, I think it > excellent. I cannot say every example and argument is perfect, but > overall the book is very successful. Further, if before me the path > split, with the continuation to my left leading to God and religion, > and the continuation to my right leading towards Science, and I were > forced to choose one, I would choose the right-leading path towards > Science. As of Wednesday, though, I've decided to use the > non-affirming negative. For me, God does not exist, and God does not > not exist. Poof. Sigh. What next? > <snip> mel: God Delusion was a successful book in that it sold lots. (Ironically, booksellers thank God for that.) But as anything other than a best seller the book fails. For centuries the arguments for and against the existence of God, proofs in the philosophical sense, have been put forth. Many are elegant and marvels of sustained creative energy. All of these proofs, so far, have a loose thread that other equally fine minds find and unravel. Dawkins appears to know none of these proofs and in his book commits so many logical fallacies, appeals to authority, and so much sloppy thinking that even a sympathetic reading by someone familiar with these prior proofs would show that he was either unaware of them, too lazy to do his homework, or just has no aptitude for well structured systematic thought. If the atheist position depended on him for its defense, then he has set it back a thousand years. To me, however, the biggest problem is none of these, but something else entirely. You (Marsha) alluded to it in your use of a "split path," the formula of choice between Science on the one hand and Religion on the other. Science and religion are not interchangeable choices. They don't DO the same things. Any choice between them that implies mutual exclusivity is a false choice, a failed opposition, a fallacious dichotomy. Some wag, somewhere, stated that Science and Religion both explain man's place in the universe. I am sure the persons assembled, when that was uttered, laughed uproariously at the clever pun, the genius level equivocation of the final 2/5's of that sentence. Some likely coughed on their cigar smoke and their cognac. After their tears were dried they went on with their conversation, but the damage was done. Folks outside the library that night, who later heard the quote, came to use it, and believed it. The insight into the pun is that the words 'explain man's place in the universe' really mean very little, but they sound reasonable and can become effective placeholders for two very different activities. Science seeks to explore and describe the way the world (the universe) works and find the common patterns that underlie what we see. (Reductio/Constructio ad infinitum) Religion is a little more problematic. The word describes more than one thing and it is easier to treat it monolithically and dismiss it or embrace it than to understand it. In one sense religions tend to have a tradition-of-the-spirit that aims to a transcendent state of unity with what practitioners believe lies beyond the mere, conventional physical. It conditions the person to behave differently in life and towards others. (maybe 'enlightened') In an inferior sense, religions tend to have a social component that seeks, among things, to limit and control behavior through taboo, prohibition, and by peer-pressure towards an end, usually formulated as 'salvation.' When the social component is properly directed as a buttress to the tradition of the spirit, then the result can be laudable and the saint is born. However, when the social component becomes a grinding millwork that crushes other social structures, works against the intellectual, and seizes primacy against freedom of choice, and dictates biological control beyond the surrounding social constructs, then it is 'run-amok'. So, religion seeks to save man from his place in the universe, spiritually, put him in his place in ranks beneath the choirs of angels and under the throne, socially. (at least for Christians) But religion doesn't really give a damn about the physical universe, so they're not interchangeable choices. or the shorter version. You can argue whether Manchester United or the New York Yankees are the better team. But DUDE, they're not in the same sport. or the clear choice. You can argue whether the toilet plunger or the ladle is the superior tool, but if you bring the soup tureen to the dinner table with a toilet plunger in it, I'm going out for pizza. The 'tool' that is science and the tool that is religion do different things. The rant C'est finis. Thanks for letting me play on "What's my Lie" thanks--mel p.s. no doubt some have already noted that I avoid the whole God portion of the argument. I did pay attention in philosophy and science classes to the little insights that one cannot prove non-existence (All is true of a null set.) and one can't prove existence in the physical of the immeasurable. (One doesn't prove a hypothesis.) Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
